Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District in Kansas City
ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in Missouri has dismissed a lawsuit accusing a debt collection company of violating federal law by threatening to withhold a student’s college transcript, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In an order issued April 21 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Douglas Harpool granted a motion to dismiss filed by Williams & Fudge, a South Carolina-based debt collector, in a case brought by Missouri resident Maria Thomas.
The court found that the statements at issue, which were an alleged warning that Thomas’s transcript could be withheld if she did not pay an outstanding balance, were not false, deceptive or misleading under the FDCPA.
Thomas’s lawsuit stemmed from a dispute over tuition charges tied to a winter 2024 semester at Benedictine College, which she attended briefly before withdrawing.
According to the complaint, the debt in question related only to those few weeks of enrollment.
Thomas alleged that in September 2024, the debt collector attempted to collect the balance on behalf of the college and warned that her academic transcript would be withheld if the debt remained unpaid.
She argued those statements were unlawful, citing a U.S. Department of Education regulation that took effect in July 2024 and limits when institutions can withhold transcripts for students who received federal financial aid.
Thomas contended that because her education had been funded at least in part by federal aid, the attempt to collect the debt using that threat amounted to a false representation of what could legally occur.
The court, however, determined that Thomas’s own allegations undermined her claim.
Specifically, the judge noted that the unpaid balance was tied to the winter 2024 semester and that the regulation she cited requires institutions to provide transcripts only for periods in which all institutional charges have been paid or arrangements to pay have been made.
“Even taking Plaintiff’s Complaint in the light most favorable to her, she has failed to show she complied with” the federal regulation, the order states.
Because of that, the court concluded that Benedictine College retained the right to withhold the transcript under the circumstances described, and that the debt collector’s statements accurately reflected that possibility.
As a result, the judge ruled the statements could not be considered false or misleading under the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using deceptive practices or threatening actions that cannot legally be taken.
The court also declined to address additional arguments raised by the defendant, including whether the regulation applied to the debt collector or whether it created a private right of action, after determining the case could be resolved on the primary issue.
The judge also denied Thomas’s motion to strike portions of the defendant’s reply brief, which she had argued introduced new legal theories and evidence.
The court found that the arguments were permissible extensions of earlier filings and that referenced materials, including publicly available records, could be considered.
The court did permit Thomas to file a sur-reply to address those arguments, stating that doing so would prevent potential prejudice.
A separate motion by Thomas seeking to compel a scheduling conference was denied as moot in light of the dismissal.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division case number: 2:25-cv-04292
